No, it wouldn't. But that's because right now you're making the decision based on a hypothetical to which you know what the "right" answer is. But when something like that actually happens, you'll be using a completely different methodology to base your position on, and will not notice that your answer will have changed. That's the pattern I'm talking about.

Lord, you're a douchy idiot. You ask a question, get an answer, then say, "Yeah, you're wrong. You don't think like you think you do."

My answer would be the same. You do not put your hands on someone else. Not because of a look. Not because of a comment. You simply do not cross that line. Especially in the military. If someone is verbally or... visually?... harassing you, file a fucking complaint and act like a fucking adult.

The RAND study used in the Pentagon's DADT report is also available in its entirety. From that study...

RAND wrote:

Findings on Implementation

• All countries manage behavior through codes of conduct. None of the countries we visited adopted special policies that address issues related to sexual orientation. Instead, all personnel are held to the same standard of behavior. Most countries manage behavior through existing codes of conduct, but the United Kingdom did issue a new code when the new policy went into effect. • No special accommodations were made. No country provided any special accommodations for privacy, such as separate or private showers or the right to change room assignments, to any of its service members, regardless of their sexual orientation. Commanders were expected to manage any issues at the unit level, just as other interpersonal conflicts are managed. MOD officials in Canada and the United Kingdom told us that they did not consider making any special accommodations because they believed that this would undermine their new policies that called for all personnel to be treated equally. [...] Findings on Consequences of the Policy Change

The countries we visited reported no significant problems of any type after the policy change. Although many negative consequences had been predicted, particularly by the Canadian and British surveys, none of them actually occurred. British descriptions of their policy change—that “the world did not end” and that it was “like flipping a light switch”—were echoed in the other countries we visited. In particular, [...] • Coming out was personal, not public. *** personnel remain sensitive to the attitudes of those in their units. Fewer *** service members tend to come out in units with reputations of being less friendly to *** personnel, but some do choose to come out in these types of units. In any case, *** personnel generally make their sexual orientation known by no longer hiding their private lives, often by putting up pictures of their partners at their desks or mentioning their partners in discussions of weekend activities, rather than by making public declarations to members of their units.

Horrifying. I can't imagine how our military could possibly cope with the liberal agenda of destroying our armed forces in a quest to call people bigots when all anyone ever wanted was to shower without homos looking at their *****.

Because the answers you are giving right now don't jive with the historical pattern.

Unless we mean the historical pattern of western first world nations who can changed their modern military forces to allowing open homosexuality.

Nope. I mean the historical pattern of applying biased and unequal rules in the wake of public pressures resulting from the perception that by doing so, you are somehow promoting equality and fighting against bias and bigotry. That and the pattern that those who most support these things are the least able to see just how biased and bigoted their own positions are while all the while condemning bias and bigotry in others and never realizing that they are victims of their own methodology.

The RAND study used in the Pentagon's DADT report is also available in its entirety. From that study...

I'd explain why this study is irrelevant, but it would take too long and you'd refuse to believe it anyway. When I spoke of public pressure, this is one of the ways it manifests. The military (any military) is not going to report that they are unable to handle or implement a policy change mandated of them. If they were ordered to require all members of the military to wear chicken suits in battle, you'd get a similar report of full compliance with no problems that couldn't be handled at the unit level.

The *** men can identify themselves as such, make statements about their sexual interests, toss out lewd comments and innuendo and otherwise engage in the exact sorts of things that make women uncomfortable showering with men. Regardless of whether you think the current situation is fair, removing the prohibition against serving while openly *** will change that dynamic. What do you think the difference "openly" makes? It's so important to *** rights that they be able to serve openly, but you honestly think it'll stop at the edge of social decorum? No one will mention their sexuality in any terms other than who they're dating back home? Do you honestly believe that?

Let me engage in a bit of slippery slope prediction:

It will not be long before we'll have events where a straight member of the military is made to be uncomfortable by the presence of an openly *** fellow soldier. And the straight guy will be labeled as s bigot for being uncomfortable listening to someone talk about how much he likes to suck other guys off while naked in the same shower. And when someone (like maybe me) points out that this was predicted when we had this discussion way back in 2010, the chorus of responses from people like you is that people should just get over their sexual hangups and that a straight man shouldn't have any reason to feel uncomfortable no matter what is being said around him. It'll be labeled as a violation of the *** mans rights if he's *not* allowed to openly discuss his sexual activities anywhere he wants.

I'm sure that'll never happen though.

Thanks for agreeing with me in the first part of this. Nothing will change. It hasn't in the canadian military. Canadian military refused to provide seperate facilities, based on the equality of all its members. (separate *** aside). So far I can't think of one incident involving gays causing issues in our armed forces.

Nothing is going to change, because the majority of gays will not come out anyway, because they are far more likely to receive more uncomfortable remarks/situational events than straights. If it is anything like society out side of the military these serving members will be shunned, berated, and more or less treated like a minority. Just like in the real world.

As for your silly prediction. How many *** men that currently serve in your military are uncomfortable when the majority of their unit shares stories about how big a chicks tits were, and how she could deep throat a zuccini, or her ***** was so tight. How many gays have had to bite their tounge listening to conversations they did not enjoy, all the while unable to tell anyone they were uncomfortable because they were forbidden to show any sign of being a homosexual. Its the same ******* argument.

My whole point, and the one you and Alma both seem either to illiterate to get, or are just to stupid to understand is that without DADT nothing is going to change for the straight man or woman. Gays are not going to magically come out of the wood work and make good on he fictitious *** agenda. If people are not uncomfortable showering with gays (who they do not know) now, then why would the be showering around the same people who they may or may not know. The fact is currently Gays are not privileged to the same rights as straights, because they can not complain about certain things, (see your above redundant prediction) such as harassment protection, and maybe most importantly being open about their loved ones.

So far I can't think of one incident involving gays causing issues in our armed forces.

They're all just lying because any nation would much rather publish reports predicting dire consequences, watch its military fall apart and then lie about it to a study group than say "We were right all along; suck it ******" and then work to repair its military which was ravaged by ****-locusts.

You didn't know this? You fool!

Quote:

My whole point, and the one you and Alma both seem either to illiterate to get, or are just to stupid to understand...

Alma might very well be retarded. Gbaji is just pure partisan obedience.

There you go, tossing out a weighted phrase with no applicability to the subject at hand.

There was applicability aplenty. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

It's funny to watch you do the mental gymnastics, the logical leaps, the wild hoops you jump through to defend your position, and then pretend like you don't see a connection. Making connections where they don't exist is practically your specialty!

So let's move on to the part where you try to explain WHY it's not relevant.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

#610Almalieque,
Posted:Jan 03 2011 at 9:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I admit that I was wrong in the sense that you didn't explicitly and literally say that, BUT the reason on why I am reserving my "sincere apology" is because you're full BS.

Wait, so you believe that there are people who only physically attracted to certain people's personalities? Please tell me that you realize that isn't even possible?

Why isn't it? I am attracted to women with good sense of humor, smart (but not smarter than me), have good hygiene, these are all personality traits. These are the things that I look for in a woman. I hold these things above ***, and tits.

Unless I am drunk, if I am drunk, the only thing that matters is how far she can put her ankles behind her ears.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Wait, so you believe that there are people who only physically attracted to certain people's personalities? Please tell me that you realize that isn't even possible?

Oh, wow. How sad for you that you don't know that it is.

Alma's comment reminds me a lot of my ex here. We were drifting apart and he started going to the gym. I have to admit he started looking pretty good. But I knew him - and I still didn't want to be with him anymore. He was completely floored to learn that it was his personality, not his looks that were driving me away.

You will continue to reject all of my reasons, because as long as that reason is a reason used for the separation of women and men, your claim that they are different will be debunked.

If you think real hard for yourself and try to come up with a reason instead of just quoting what I said and pretending it fits your argument, I'd be willing to listen.

One reason I thought of (and one you'll probably take negatively, but I don't mean it that way) is a guy who is honestly confused about his own sexuality. It may make him uncomfortable to know that there's a homosexual man in that very naked place, while he's still grappling what his own sexuality. That's not homophobic or bigoted, it's just confusion.

Or maybe a guy is ashamed of the size of his... endowment, and he is genuinely worried that a homosexual would be looking and then make fun of him for the size of his junk.

Most likely, though, you're going to run into people who are concerned by this in a mostly bigoted way, because they are disgusted and angered by a man finding another man attractive. This isn't the same as women not wanting to share a shower with men. They aren't disgusted or angry about the attraction. We were just raised to show modesty and not to show our naked bodies to members of the opposite ***.

To be completely honest, I'm not really comfortable being naked at the Y in the ladies locker room. I didn't have the wonderful experience of PE when I was a kid (I was a band nerd and they considered marching band our physical requirement) so I never partook in a group shower. Nakedness is simply something we are taught not to expose, except when at the doctors office or showering in gender specific places after gym or in the military.

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

Haha, no. I assume the likelihood is that they're smaller and weaker. But, no, not all.

You assume sufficiently enough that your laugh wasn't contingent on any knowledge other than that a woman beat up a man. Just checking. And hey! It's a funny subject anyway, right?

Quote:

Ah, so you just don't believe that they're plausible. Always a half empty glass with you, isn't it?

No. I think that those who point the finger of bigotry at others the most are often guilty of not looking at themselves enough to put the issue in perspective. Just doing my part for humanity and whatnot.

What I've learned so far is that straight men are terrified of being looked at by *** men, even though they look at women in the same way all the time without regard for their comfort.

Actually, no, I haven't learned that at all, because the straight guys I know are much more secure in themselves than whatever representative of military men Alma has conjured up to support his position.

If straight men in the military are freaked out by the idea of knowing that they are serving with *** men (which apparently they already do know), then they need to grow up. 'S all I have to say about that.

So your argument is that the women who are freaked out about being sexually checked out at work, in the showers by men or in any other place needs to grow up?

kachi wrote:

You talk in large, convoluted circles. It takes multiple people forever to figure out what your point or position is, because you treat it as if it were a riddle or a secret. Then once they finally peg it down, you chide them for having wasted so much time-- a lot less time than you spend raveling these messy mysteries in the first place. But for you, it's all a game! Haha, those mortal fools!

Oh, really, please tell me what's so convoluted and circular about: "My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots."?

I've stated that multiple times......

Kachi wrote:

Little did you realize (though I've said it to you outright?) that I only talk to you for my own amusement. So essentially, at best, you think you're the mastermind of this cat and mouse game, when in reality you're like the Wile E Coyote to my Roadrunner. More likely, you just don't know how to have a discussion like a mature adult.

lol, I never stated that I was in a cat and mouse game. That's another false argument that you created. You obviously felt like the mouse and decided to retaliate with "No YOU ARE!!!"... If I'm having fun with you and you're having fun with me, how is one over the other?

Kachi wrote:

Not all women are the same size either, genius. A small man has to deal with whatever discomfort he feels given that he lives in a world where he is constantly surrounded by men who are larger than he-- men who's of likeliness to cornhole him are among the least of his worries (again, unless he's in prison). If as a smaller man, you can deal with the constant, far greater threat of being in a physical altercation with a larger man, then showering with teh gheys should really be pretty far from your list of concerns.

Your observation is that the difference between a small and large man is in many cases the same as the difference between the average man and woman. Are you really too stupid to realize then that the difference is double between a larger man and the average woman? That in many cases, there's a difference of 100 lbs rather than 50? Does that in any way help you to understand the distinction between a man's fear of showering with men and a woman's?

Way to miss the point Mr. Wile E. Coyote. So, please address the point. The point is that it doesn't matter the size of the person next to you if there isn't a threat. Women are creating a threat that doesn't exist based off of prejudice. Just because someone is bigger than you doesn't mean that they are more likely to attack you. That person can have no interest in attacking you. What makes you think a male has any interest in the female next to him?

Nadenu wrote:

As a straight female, I am sexually attracted to straight men. Not ALL straight men. So yes, I can have a sexual interest in something, but not find all of that something attractive. (the "something" in question here are straight males)

Maybe that wasn't written clearly. That "something" is the same in both scenarios. I wasn't talking in a general sense. No one is attracted to all men or women... give me some credit...

In other words, I can't have a sexual interest in Beyonce and not be attracted to her. That doesn't make sense.

Alma's "I hit my posting quota for the day" remark just lost its spot as Saddest Statement in this Thread.

I haven't forgotten about the other responses, but I had to respond to this nonsense first.

Seriously WTF is so unbelievable about me creating a quota to stop posting to enjoy my Christmas break? Are you really that dense, or is this me acting "defensive" because you're not really saying anything of any value?

Alma's "I hit my posting quota for the day" remark just lost its spot as Saddest Statement in this Thread.

It's sad that I point out that those who accuse others of being bigots are often guilty of it themselves? Ok. Whatever floats your boat. Seems more like it makes you uncomfortable to have such revelations appear in a thread in which it's more convenient for your position if everyone simply argues on the most simplistic surface level possible.

It's terrifically easy to just label those who disagree with you as bigots. It's a lot harder to honestly examine the issue of bigotry and apply the same rules to everyone and not just those you already believe are wrong. And if it's somehow "sad" for me to point this out, then so be it.

As a straight female, I am sexually attracted to straight men. Not ALL straight men. So yes, I can have a sexual interest in something, but not find all of that something attractive. (the "something" in question here are straight males)

Maybe that wasn't written clearly. That "something" is the same in both scenarios. I wasn't talking in a general sense. No one is attracted to all men or women... give me some credit...

Ding ding ding! And this is why having *** and straight men shower together won't make a difference. Not all *** men are going to be attracted to all other men.

And about what you said to Samira earlier, most women who get looked at by other men *have* grown up and learned to deal with it. It happens. And most of us don't cry about it and we are usually able to completely ignore it.

Ding ding ding! And this is why having *** and straight men shower together won't make a difference. Not all *** men are going to be attracted to all other men.

So why do we have separate shower facilities for men and women? Not all straight men are going to be attracted to all women either.

Apply your logic to more than just the one case you're arguing and see how it works.

Quote:

And about what you said to Samira earlier, most women who get looked at by other men *have* grown up and learned to deal with it. It happens. And most of us don't cry about it and we are usually able to completely ignore it.

So you support having men and women in the military share showers, barracks, etc? Just checking how far your principles of equality really go.

As a straight female, I am sexually attracted to straight men. Not ALL straight men. So yes, I can have a sexual interest in something, but not find all of that something attractive. (the "something" in question here are straight males)

Maybe that wasn't written clearly. That "something" is the same in both scenarios. I wasn't talking in a general sense. No one is attracted to all men or women... give me some credit...

Ding ding ding! And this is why having *** and straight men shower together won't make a difference. Not all *** men are going to be attracted to all other men.

And about what you said to Samira earlier, most women who get looked at by other men *have* grown up and learned to deal with it. It happens. And most of us don't cry about it and we are usually able to completely ignore it.

I can't quite agree with the sentiment that you seem to be expressing. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being uncomfortable with another person oggling you when you're nude.

With combined *** & straight showers, something like that is certainly a possibility, though I suspect it'd be a stretch to call it a likelihood. I wouldn't look down on someone for being a little leery. 'Course, the military already has combined showers, so that's no argument against DADT repeal. It's just that I could see people requesting some additional options for privacy...sure it'd be a little after-the-fact, but the rationale seems sound and moral to me.

It doesn't have to be about homophobia; a dislike of being checked out while exposed isn't unique to females, nor are gays universally above sneaking a glance at someone if given the chance.

If we respect that feeling within women regarding men (or vice versa), then I see no reason to dismiss it between same-*** folks. ****, there are probably gays out there who'd appreciate some more privacy options to avoid the eyes of other gays a bit, too.

In other words, I can't have a sexual interest in Beyonce and not be attracted to her. That doesn't make sense.

lolwhat. Id **** the **** out of britney spears but I am not attracted to her, **** Id stick it in Demi Moore too just to say I did. The amount of places my ***** has been compared to the number of girls ive been attracted to is not very close to even. Clearly someone has never worn beer goggles home from the bar, or is still a virgin.

My ***** decides where it wants to go on its own, it doesn't mean the rest of me has to enjoy it.

For the millionth time: the straight and *** men are already showering together. All you straight guys were hanging out in the locker room in high school with at least one *** guy, I'd be willing to bet. And all this time, these *** men haven't out-and-out leered at you or made you uncomfortable, have they? They've been able to control themselves and more likely, they just didn't find you attractive. And if they haven't been able to exercise control, maybe it crosses over into sexual harassment and then it becomes a totally different issue.

It doesn't really change the point if there are some exceptions. By and large, they are.

Quote:

Oh, really, please tell me what's so convoluted and circular about: "My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots."?

Which is not an uncommon cover for, "I don't think gays should be in the military. aka There are reasons for excluding them other than bigotry." What you've been convoluted about is articulating a decent argument for what those other reasons might be. When you can't do that, or do a poor job of making that argument, saying it's not just bigotry is not at all convincing.

Quote:

lol, I never stated that I was in a cat and mouse game. That's another false argument that you created. You obviously felt like the mouse and decided to retaliate with "No YOU ARE!!!"... If I'm having fun with you and you're having fun with me, how is one over the other?

The tone of your post was that you were toying with me, which was humorous. But if I misinterpreted something, then I'm willing to drop it.

Quote:

Women are creating a threat that doesn't exist based off of prejudice.

I laughed so hard, I think my neighbors heard.

Oh, the willful naivety.

Quote:

So why do we have separate shower facilities for men and women? Not all straight men are going to be attracted to all women either.

I don't see why it's necessary to rehash what I've already said. I gave a pretty thorough breakdown like a page back. In summation: some of the reasons apply loosely in principle to segregating gays and straights, but none of them apply in any meaningful way.

Quote:

lolwhat. Id @#%^ the sh*t out of britney spears but I am not attracted to her, **** Id stick it in Demi Moore too just to say I did. The amount of places my ***** has been compared to the number of girls ive been attracted to is not very close to even. Clearly someone has never worn beer goggles home from the bar, or is still a virgin.

My ***** decides where it wants to go on its own, it doesn't mean the rest of me has to enjoy it.

Yeah, look at it this way-- how many old men are really physically attracted to their wrinkly old wives? Yet old people fuck eachother all the time.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

A tangent note, but I found it to be interesting since we typically consider men and women in terms of equality. A typical male is about twice as strong in the upper body as a female, and about 50% stronger in the lower body. This isn't just because males tend to be involved in more physical activities, but largely because they have massively more muscle fibers and base muscle mass. Males also have stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments enabling for greater physical exertion.

I was always perplexed by the idea of girl push-ups, but it does make quite a bit of sense.

Actually I think what people want is a source that supports your position that *** men in a shower with straight men is the same as straight men in a shower with women. So before you change your argument for the 3rd time. Answer my question from page 2.

Wait, so you want a source that says that homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men except for sexual interest? That's interesting. How are you fighting for "Equality" if you're doubting the equality? I'm sure I could whip one up, but as I mentioned in previous threads, those types of sources will be biased to whatever you're trying to prove.

What question from page 2? I'm sure I addressed it.

RDD wrote:

If you are already serving with *** men, are already living/showering with *** men. What difference does DADT make, outside allowing those *** men to come out, and in retrospect allow you to avoid those men if you feel uncomfortable. So I ask again, what is your issue, either you can tolerate gays, or you can't, either you are a bigot, or you are not.

My issue is people calling men bigots for feeling uncomfortable showering with homosexual men. I already explained the difference with the repeal of DADT. No one is denying the existence of homosexuals. Homosexuals don't walk around with a Scarlett Letter, so ANYONE can be a homosexual. It's all psychological, the same psychological thoughts that women have with men. There's no proof that the man next to her is remotely interested in her, yet he is separated as if he causes an increase of a threat.

RDD wrote:

Ill repeat this again because I am sure your mind has already tried to skew what I said for your own awkward outlook on things. You already live/shower with *** men, the only thing that is changing is those *** men can say if they are or not. So either you can tolerate being around *** men (like you do now unknowingly) or you can't (knowingly) which means you are either a bigot or you are not.

Read above.

Ugly wrote:

None that I can think of. I suspect that's one of two things going on there. A stall, to allow the homophobes to adjust or rhetoric, designed to placate the homophobes a bit.

Besides the fact that would contradict the claim that the military welcomes the repeal, the quotes I presented to you stated that he needed time to implement further separation.

Jophiel wrote:

Slow moving bureaucracy? Taking X many days to do something doesn't mean that doing something requires X many days.

Read above. If everyone is "for the repeal", then there wouldn't be any slow moving bureaucracy. If the plan is to implement further separation among servicemen and the rewriting of the UCMJ, I'm sure that will take more than 40 days and probably longer than a year.

Jophiel wrote:

Hahaha... nice strawman but you still managed to dork it up. Politicians matter because the new regulations will be determined by them. Gates, Mullen & Obama will ultimately decide the new rules, not Casey or Amos or whoever else. But, you know, feel free to keep saying "You only believe them because you think they never lie!" That was truly a cutting remark and stuff.

For that matter, the Chiefs of Staff are politicians. They are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president as they serve in a decision-making capacity in his administration. They may not act "political" in your eyes but they are definitely politicians.

I know Mr. Gates, Mr. Mullen and President Obama ultimately decide the new rules, but they aren't the ones that best understand what's going on. That was my point, not who makes the rules, but who is most knowledgeable on the situation. It's the Chiefs of Staff, that's why they advise the President and that's why Mr. Obama is allowing them the time to implement the changes. If the President isn't going to listen to the staff, then there is no point in having a staff.

Of course they are "politicians", that's why they didn't just come out and say that DADT shouldn't be repealed. If they thought the repeal was so necessary, they would have been fighting it all along, not when a new president comes in. FYI: The biggest difference between an officer in the military vs the enlisted, is politics. All Officers are "politicians" on different levels.

Ding ding ding! And this is why having *** and straight men shower together won't make a difference. Not all *** men are going to be attracted to all other men.

This is the stupidest thing not said by Vabajieque in this whole thread, but more personally frustrating because I broadly share your stance.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 12:34am by Kavekk

So you're also frustrated that no *** men have hit on you. Poor thing.

Suggesting that no *** man in the history of communal showers would ever sneak a glance or two at someone they find attractive would be pretty silly. Its not very hard to fathom. Personally, were I to share a shower with the opposite gender, i'd be damned hard pressed to not sneak some looks at somebody I found attractive. I'm sure there are a few like-minded gays out there. And if the possibility exists, its then perfectly natural to want some extra privacy options to help alleviate the concern. For better or worse, we've got a lot of social mores that disincline us from being seen nude, particularly by those who are sexually attracted to our gender.

It's a social construct, yes, but there's nothing inherently right or wrong about it. Its certainly got nothing to do with a lack of maturity, nor does it imply a self-consciousness about ones looks or package size. To suggest otherwise is just ad hominem.

But anyway, as I said before, its a poor argument against DADT repeal because gays and straights are already showering together. All I'm saying is that I see nothing wrong with someone making a case for some additional partitions and curtains to go along with the repeal. Nothin' wrong with that, right?

The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".

What does the Chain of Command have anything to do with that scenario?

Kachi wrote:

There you go, conveniently forgetting about "separate but equal" again.

Uh, he didn't forget it, there's just no comparison. Discrimination on physical traits, height, skin color, ***,etc. is completely different from discrimination of personality traits, sexuality, religion,etc. The former traits tells you nothing about the person, while the latter traits tells you something about the person.

Majivo wrote:

Are you really so convinced that everyone is lying to help their argument that you can't accept the answer you were given? For me, my response would be the same either way. You don't step outside the chain of command without a pressing need to do so, such as being placed in immediate physical danger, which is not present in the scenario you presented. ***, straight, man, woman, doesn't matter.

There's the chain of command again... What does that have to do with anything?!?!

JO wrote:

Or, you know, we can sit and cry about scary liberal plots to call Gbaji and Alma bigots at the expense of our military which could never handle the horrific waves of ***-on-straight shower harassment looming over the horizon. ----------------------------

You must have me confused again. I think I stated a million times that my point is that not every person who is against open homosexuality in the military is a bigot.

The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".

What does the Chain of Command have anything to do with that scenario?

Everything? What, did you just completely fail to understand the scenario? If you break the rules, or there are allegations that you broke the rules, you get investigated. Attempting to take matters into your own hands because someone looked at you sexually is over the line.

What does the Chain of Command have anything to do with that scenario?

Sexual harassment. The soldier should have let superiors deal with it. And you're an officer? I imagine a lot of slackers would love to be under your command and have the freedom to do whatever they want.

Uh, he didn't forget it, there's just no comparison. Discrimination on physical traits, height, skin color, ***,etc. is completely different from discrimination of personality traits, sexuality, religion,etc. The former traits tells you nothing about the person, while the latter traits tells you something about the person.

The point was about protecting the comfort of soldiers. If soldiers were uncomfortable sharing facilities with black men because they were bigots but had to suck it up, how is that significantly different from having to suck it up and share with *** men (which they're already doing)? Your best argument is that one discomfort is more legitimate than the other, but you haven't really managed to defend it so far.

Quote:

I think I stated a million times that my point is that not every person who is against open homosexuality in the military is a bigot.

No, some of them just think it will make the bigots uncomfortable. Otherwise you've yet to make a successful compelling argument that exemplifies these people who are against DADT but aren't bigots.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

For the millionth time: the straight and *** men are already showering together.

In an environment where by rule no one is "allowed" to be ***. It's an offense that results in discharge. That some hide their orientation and join up anyway is irrelevant. It's somewhat like knowing that it's possible for someone to hide a camera in the clothing store dressing room and take pictures of you while naked, but you know it's illegal and if they're caught they'll be punished. Your argument is equivalent to saying that if we make putting cameras in the dressing rooms legal, no one should feel uncomfortable changing in them.

Of course they will. And soldiers will feel uncomfortable knowing that there's a *** person in their unit showering with them. Knowing this will make it worse than knowing it's possible. A lot worse.

Quote:

All you straight guys were hanging out in the locker room in high school with at least one *** guy, I'd be willing to bet. And all this time, these *** men haven't out-and-out leered at you or made you uncomfortable, have they? They've been able to control themselves and more likely, they just didn't find you attractive. And if they haven't been able to exercise control, maybe it crosses over into sexual harassment and then it becomes a totally different issue.

I'll ask again: So why do we not require men and women to share shower facilities in the military? The same arguments you just made apply equally. As long as no one sexually harasses anyone, it should be all good, right?

I think some of you totally miss my position on this. My point is that society shouldn't have these hangups at all. We should allow all people to share facilities. ***, straight, men, women, children, adults. Nudity shouldn't be an issue for us at all.

But it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's hypocritical to insist that one group of people drop one specific hangup while you (most of you) continue to cling to a whole host of equally irrational ones yourself. Any woman who thinks that no straight male should be bothered by showering with a *** man, should herself have no problems showering with straight men. And unless you can honestly say that, then you should admit to yourself that while we can say that such things are irrational, it is more than a bit unfair to just label it bigotry.